Opinion

Readers respond to printing of Muhammad cartoon

Also by Letters to the Editor:
Sharing Tools:

E-mail this article:




Share on:

by Letters to the Editor
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 00:00

On Monday, the Badger Herald Editorial Board crossed a line they were already dangerously close to. It was bad seeing a Herald redrawing of what it called the "most offensive" of the Danish cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammed with a bomb for a turban, but to now see an actual blown-up reprint has gone too far. Among the arguments the editors made justifying their reprint were "free speech," "news-worthiness," and a desire not to be "gatekeepers" guided by "prude censorship." They simply don't get it.

Cartoonists may have a legal right to free expression. The problem exists in a newspaper not taking the responsibility to discriminate between what has a utility in its publication, and what serves no purpose but to provoke. Muslims are legitimate in expressing their desire for papers to refrain from reprinting the article and demanding an apology. Despite the fact that the media claims the cartoons are "the impetus of riots that have caused numerous deaths" and have "reduced symbols of global peace to charred ruins," only 13 people died as a result and 12 were unarmed protestors killed by law enforcement. The seven damaged embassies weren't occupied, and the demonstrations, boycotts, and petitioning were examples of a community's peaceful freedom to express their opinion when blatant examples of racism and bigotry are thrown in their faces.

The Badger Herald ignored a plea from the Madison Muslim community explicitly expressing their frustration with the Herald's previous articles/drawings before they reprinted this cartoon. If they wanted to print a newsworthy story, they would write about why people are upset, what motivated the cartoon, and what the actual impacts of it are instead of blindly forging ahead under a banner of upholding free speech. We are not asking for a ban on a Nazi march in Skokie or a KKK rally in downtown Madison. We are pleading with our campus newspapers to not put on the hood, to not wear the swastika. We are pleading with them to not twist symbols from what they are into icons and ideals of the free press.

Adam Sitte

UW undergraduate

Mogahed hypocrite on free speech

I am both shocked and appalled at Ms. Mogahed's (Letter to the Editor, Feb. 14) blatant disregard for one of the core values and rights upon which this society is founded; a society in which Ms. Mogahed can vote, can travel beyond the confines of her home unescorted by a male, can own property and can demand an apology for an offensive cartoon. Yes the cartoon of Muhammad published by the Badger Herald two days ago is offensive, and yes the original Danish publisher of the cartoon is arguably making a statement tinged with racism. However, it seems that Ms. Mogahed in her response either did not read the article published along with the cartoon in the Badger Herald, or ironically only believes in the exchange of ideas through free speech when it suites her intentions.

Any institutional publication will try to court its readers. As such, they publish articles and cartoons that they believe will capture the minds of their readers through fascination, disbelief, relevance to current issues, and even outrage. The fact that a Danish newspaper, confused as to its own policies, has sold out to political pressure does not make the action right, nor does it give any valid reason for political censorship.

In a PC age when the federal government is courting the religious right, the foundation of our democratic society is being continually bombarded by those who wish to take away right after right and sensor [sic] the way we are taught and even the way we think. It is important to uphold those fundamental rights and practices we deem necessary for a free and democratic nation. The right to free speech and freedom of the press is paramount to a democratic society and I would defend anyone's right to dissenting views or to ignorantly spew forth "hate speech," even if by making use of this right, someone advocates destruction of it. The beautiful part of free speech is that if it is offensive, you can ignore it, or turn the page.

Anthony Cook

UW senior

Free speech not the issue

I was deeply dismayed that you printed one of the cartoons from Jyllands-Posten. Moreover, I was incredulous to find that the editorial staff portrayed themselves as crusaders for free speech. Freedom of speech is not the issue here. The issue is that the Danish newspaper decided to print these cartoons knowing they would be hurtful to the already harassed and beleaguered Muslim population in Denmark (and that by reprinting the cartoons the Badger Herald joins them in this).

The context is important here. Like many European countries these days, Denmark has been passing increasingly xenophobic and anti-Muslim legislation, not to mention informal harassment by the public. The cartoons were just another way to attack this population. By claiming that their freedom of speech is being threatened, the Danish newspaper makes itself appear the victim. In fact, by printing the cartoons, Jyllands-Posten committed a wrong. By reprinting the cartoons, the Badger Herald perpetuates that wrong.

You wrote "we feel the American readership — and, more precisely, that of Madison, Wis. — is sufficiently mature to handle these images." Just read some of the posted comments (which are truly hateful) and tell me if you still believe it. Your editorial insincerely suggests that it is providing real information, as if these images were not already available on the web for those who wanted to see them. By printing them, rather than just talking about them, you implicitly endorse them.

Shame on you for your irresponsible and mean-spirited editorial decision.

Lauren Vedal

UW graduate student

Herald makes right call

The defense of Free Speech and the ability of a free society to satirize any and everything, no matter how sacred, is fundamental to the liberty of all. If making light of religion is not allowed, then to what extent ought making light of politics be allowed?

Free speech has limits, no doubt, but it is primarily to the extent of incitement and obscenity, as the Supreme Court decided and laid out the standard in the paradigm Brandenburg case.

Unreasonable reactions to satirization of sacred figures is not justifiable grounds to censor or self-censor. Indeed, it is the very reason why offensive speech receives a presumption of protection — offense is, by definition, relative to the individual. What offends you necessarily does not offend everyone.

The cartoons are not obscene, nor were they published for the purpose of inciting violence. Instead, these cartoons have been used merely to advance a movement seeking the destruction of the ability of individuals to freely mock that which they deem worthy of satirization — indeed, the destruction of liberty itself. If anyone truly harbor doubts as to the veracity of the hatred of all things related to freedom, the riots in relation to these cartoons ought to shine light where there once may have been darkness.

Kudos for your courage. May your bravery in the face of political correctness and fear of reprisals be remembered for its justness in the annals of American history. Needless to say, I am extremely proud.

Zach Stern

Badger Herald Associate Editorial Page Editor, 2004-05

Cartoon slanderous to Muslims

Peace be with you,

This is the greeting of 1.3 billion people in the world, who dont [sic] speak it with there [sic] toungue [sic] but with their heart. You have brought ignorence [sic] and placed it to print, in hopes of attention you definetly [sic] have underestimated.

Muslims all around the world have protested, and demonstrated there [sic] clear miscontent [sic] for the "ammusing" [sic] cartoons the Denmark newspaper has published. And with that in mind your newspaper had the audasity [sic] to reprint them, that is disturbing to not only me, but to many who will soon write to you about this issue.

It is so disturbing because your intention to belittle and slander and misguide and miscommunicate and misjudge muslims [sic] is clear. We have no hate to offer to the world, except the hate of injustice. You have clearly unjustly rideculed [sic] our religion, our beloved prophet, and us. Whatever feelings you have towards islam [sic] and its current politics needs to be subsided for you to educate yourselves and do your responsibility as informed citizens. Your ignorence [sic] is not ammusing [sic] its [sic] disgusting.

I demand a formal appology [sic] from the "The Badger Herald"

Thank you for your time.

Nooruddin Farooqui

Finance Chair

Muslim Student Association of Milwaukee

Think of target, not cartoonist

I'm writing in response to the Herald's publication of the incredibly racist, anti-Islamic cartoon. I would like to take issue with a few key phrases in the article. First, the editorial board argues that not censuring controversial expressions such as this cartoon are "newsworthy and the key to helping many form intelligent opinions about the international riots and ever-increasing destabilization of a volatile region of the world." This assertion does not take into account the effects of such a cartoon heaped upon the long list of violence and injustice propagated by the US and its European allies throughout the Muslim world. The British medical journal Lancet estimated that over 100,000 Iraqis had been killed after only 18 months of occupation. Not only does the civilian death toll continue to rise, but the country's infrastructure lies in ruin as does that of the already war torn nation of Afghanistan. Furthermore, Washington's claims of bringing democracy to the Middle East are even further exposed to be a sham by its threats to not recognize the democratically elected members of Hamas to the recently held Palestinian legislative elections.

The kind of expression embodied in this cartoon does not contribute anything positive to the so-called 'marketplace of ideas,' unless racism and hatred are considered positive. Also, this marketplace isn't as absolute as the editors would have you believe as we are not free to slander someone, print libelous statements, or to create a hostile environment (i.e. sexual harassment) to name a few. If people have a right to learn in a non-hostile environment and this speech is allowed it's protecting the rights of the artist over the target (I'm sure this cartoon's sentiment, if verbalized in a discussion on campus, would not be tolerated). Ultimately, this cartoon only legitimizes further attacks on Arabs and Muslims around the world and fuels the US witch-hunt at home when such racist expressions can be written off as humor and free speech. I firmly believe that there would be students on campus who would march in the streets to a Nazi parade or a KKK rally in Madison to put a stop to the ideas and actions they espouse. We shouldn't applaud the so-called bravery of the papers who published this cartoon; we must stand in solidarity with the targets.

Jesse Zarley

UW student

Chancellor should take action

Dear Mr. John Wiley,

Pertaining cartoon in Badger Herald that dictating [sic] the Prophet Muhammad, I as a Muslim think that this is a mock [sic] to my religion and to University of Wisconsin-Madison. This is because it shows that students in UW-Madison is [sic] ignorant about religious and racial issues. I was in student government and was part of Plan 2008. I saw that how lack of diversity issue [sic] are handled by your admistration [sic] and it was sad to see how ignorance of UW Students [sic] on diversity issue.

I believe that you should confront this matter personally with Badger Herald and ask them to apologize to all Muslim [sic] in UW and also Muslim community. I hope you will consider this issue seriously and take action immediately.

Thank you and best wishes,

Khairul Nizam Arifin

Director of Asian Development

FINEXIM, LLC

Showing image adds little to debate

Dear members of the Badger Herald Editorial Board,

Well said. Thank you for informing us about this debate. You could have sent the same message, and the sufficiently mature people of Madison would have perceived the full message without having to print the pictures. Most people all over the world have already seen these pictures, and I wonder what added value printing this picture had brought to your article. You might need to stop for a minute and think if you should be followers or inventors, constructive or destructive in our actions. it [sic] is very disappointing to see how shallow the Badger Herald had become to show the freedom of speech, when its board could have done it in a better way showing more respect and dignity to everyone in this campus.

Thank you,

Mazin Halawani

UW student


Feedback
Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 1:54am):

I notice that there are a lot of Muslims complaining. Maybe that's because they don't have to worry about somebody sticking a knife in them if they don't like what they say.

Submit or die is the message of Islam.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 2:01am):

Again with the "racism" BS! Islam is NOT a race.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 2:11am):

It's one thing to publish the cartoon the first time under the guise of free speech. But for the Badger Herald, and Brad Vogel specifically, to reprint it just to further spread the hatred is unbelievable. It was not done to make an editorial statement, but to promote hate and bigotry.

Yes, KKK marches are "free speech," but that doesn't mean people should do it.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 4:04am):

First of all, enough with the personal attacks upon Brad Vogel. If he posted it, it was with the BH's approval.

Also, those DEMANDING a formal apology should check on their grammar before submission.

Third, the BH printed the pictures, yet I don't see riots on State Street, nor are kids attacking housefellows in the SouthEast dorms. PC fanatics may cry that the printing is offensive. Yes, possibly. The point is, everyone is making a HUGE deal out of these stupid cartoons. The BH is providing an admirable service to the commmunity in informing it about why exactly these protests have arisen and why people have died - over cartoons.
Take a look, make your judgement. Scream about it, chastise the cartoonists - at least you'll have ACTUALLY SEEN what the hell you're making a ruckus about now, thanks to the BH.

Nice job, BH. Once more, I commend you.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 7:49am):

We should not let ourselves be censored by extremists. Publishing the "offending cartoon" shows readers how obsurd rioters are.

Write a pissed off letter, don't kill or destroy property over a cartoon.

I didn't burn flags when Calvin and Hobbes retired.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 7:59am):

Freedom of speech is only important if you're going to offend someone. If you're not going to offend someone, you don't need freedom of speech.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 8:10am):

So what if the cartoons are slanderous to Muslims. Just look at all the slanderous crap that Muslims have leveled at Jews, Hindus and Christians. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Kapeesh?

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 8:24am):

It should be remembered that it was a Danish Muslim scholar Ahmed Akkari, who spread the Mohammed cartoons throughout the Middle East and thereby ignited the current controversy.

He even included 3 actually offensive cartoons that weren't even puplished with the others, at least one of which has been demostrated to be a complete fraud.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 8:30am):

I still have no definitive answer. The Arabs will tell you that the Koran cannot be translated and therefore those who don't read Arabic haven't read the document. I don't find that a compelling argument, but fairness dictates that I repeat it for you. That said, my reading of what I am told is an excellent translation makes it very clear that there is the House of Islam -- submission -- and the House of War, which is everyone who has not submitted. There can never be peace between those Houses. There can only be truce.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail399.html#Friday

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 8:30am):

Nice job with the "sic" attack.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 8:31am):

Perhaps radical Islamists fear ridicule. But no matter how bad we make them feel about their own insecurities, or how good we make them feel about them, they are still going to want to kill us.

Well I'm an unapologetic non-practicing Heathen and I'm not above murderous thoughts against those who wish to murder me.

If this devolves into a 'clash of civilizations' only one of the parties in this fight really is qualified for the application of the term.

If they want a return to an 8th Century paradise, at some point we (at least the U.S., Europe, not so sure) will oblige them.


http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn05.html

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 8:39am):

Wow, I didn't realize that conservatives were such flag bearers for free speech. Is that why they are demanding that homosexual couples be allowed to compete in the Z104 kissing contest? Is that why they stood up for the right for TAs to strike? They only free speech that you ever stand up for is speech that is tinged with hate.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 8:46am):

I wonder if we would be having this argument had the cartoon of Muhammad had not had the bomb in his turban. Which is more offensive the image of Muhammad or the bomb? Which is
more offensive an image of a swastika or the actual act of the holocaust? The "Producers" a movie about a play called "Spring Time for Hitler" is a huge success in Israel. Something I did not expect. Which is more offensive an image of Muhammad or the violent reaction to it? If images of anything cause the type of violence we've seen in reaction to the Muhammad cartoon, then there is a much bigger problem then any simple image.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 8:55am):

I miss Skye McAllister. Best cartoonist the BH ever had.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 9:07am):

The Posten's cartoons suggest that Islam may have a violence problem. It's amazing that anyone could look at the world today and declare that the Posten's suggestion is libelous. After watching the resulting riots across the Muslim world, some people still compare the cartoons to a KKK march. It just proves that there is no cure for willful blindness.

Nooruddin Farooqui weighs in for the MSA of Milwaukee. Farooqui is apparently outraged that anyone would suggest a link between terrorism and Islam... while serving as Finance Chair of an organization that supports Islamic terrorism! Across the country important leaders of MSA chapters have repeatedly shown that they support terrorism. This includes raising money for Hezbollah, declaring support for the Hamas movement, inviting a Taliban ambassador to speak (six months before 9/11), and working for radical Muslim charities.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16325

http://www.meforum.org/article/603

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 9:17am):

Can some Muslim brother care to explain the following self-contradiction, that I obtained on a Google search, to this neophyte? My understanding was that these passages can be interpreted in any way as it suits the mullahs and the masses alike.

http://www.universalunity.net/quran4/002.qmt.html

002.190
Waqatiloo fee sabeeli Allahi allatheena yuqatiloonakum wala taAAtadoo inna Allaha la yuhibbu almuAAtadeena
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

002.191
Waoqtuloohum haythu thaqiftumoohum waakhrijoohum min haythu akhrajookum waalfitnatu ashaddu mina alqatli wala tuqatiloohum AAinda almasjidi alharami hatta yuqatilookum feehi fa-in qatalookum faoqtuloohum kathalika jazao alkafireena
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

And for those with enough time to waste, a very biased account goes below that explains the above Yusuf Ali translation.
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/toc.html

Please do not be appaled at me. Be appaled at all the information I can obtain by a Google search. Or do we want Google to use its "China-rules" here too?

Bismillahir Rahman-ar-rahim! Peace be upon us all!!

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 9:48am):

Wow let's see the Muslims respond to cartoons showing how violent their religious believes are by:

a. saying forget about it it is just one paper's opinion

b. ha-ha good caricture

c. How dare those infidels portray us as violent let's go burn some stores, kill, riot and destroy.

Way to go Denmark for finally "unmasking" this so called "Religion of Peace" for what it truly is. Too bad the US hasn't pulled it's head from it's ultra-liberal PC ass and done the same long ago.

Finally thank you Islam, for showing us your true nature and the fact that after a few centuries you remain the same SAVAGES Muhammed tried to reign under some sort of control all those years ago.

And yes I know Christians don't have a spot free religion either but the difference is which religion has seemed to evolve? Which one is still stuck in the Middle Ages??

Now excuse me I have some Korans to flush....

Oohh did I just insult some Muslims, so what are you going to do now forget about it or come burn my house down and again SHOW YOUR TRUE COLORS....

In short the actions of the Islamic community are the reason for these carictures and they really have no one to blame but themselves for how they are portrayed in the media.

Now this letter will be submitted for publication will your "we don't want to offend anybody" paper actually do so

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 10:26am):

Thanks for the grammar cheap shot, it really adds to this "intellectually" stimulating discussion.

If we truly want a society that holds truth above rhetoric, let's stop the blatant hatred towards Muslims. These people deserve just as much respect as any other minority, and to simplify Islam as a religion a violent religion is only doing a disservice to yourself.

End the hatred.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 11:54am):

Comparing the printing of this cartoon to "putting on the hood" shows the complete lack of perspective by individuals who can't see any issue outside of a "victim" framework. Was the BH printing the cartoons to advocate their message? If not, it's hard to argue they are promoting cultural hatred.

I'm also tickled by the defense of the riots in that they "only" led to the death of 12 or 13 people. A million acts of blasphemy are not worth a SINGLE death. To believe otherwise is to abdicate the founding principles of liberal society (which, unfortunately, far too many members of the brain-dead Left are willing to join with their analogs in the Religious Right to do).

European nations do have severe problems with integrating their Muslim citizens, and they can clearly be faulted for their choices. But the instant that the Muslim response went beyond peaceful protest to violence, it should lose the support or sympathy of any American who believes that religious doctrine should dictate free expression.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 12:14pm):

"I notice that there are a lot of Muslims complaining. Maybe that's because they don't have to worry about somebody sticking a knife in them if they don't like what they say."

Actually, yeah they do. Muslims and Arabs in this country have seen a huge increase in the number of motivated physical attacks over the last 4 years. Not to mention all the other personal attacks and ill-feelings, with the words "towel-heads" or "hajis" used in the same context as "fags."

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 12:18pm):

"lack of diversity issue"

This is an absurd complaint, given the absolute intolerance of Islam for any other religion or especially for anyone without a religion. First examine the treatment of women and gays under Islam before trying to play the "diversity card", it has to apply all ways before it is valid.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 12:28pm):

"...demanding that homosexual couples be allowed to compete in the Z104 kissing contest?"

Well Christian fundies may not be the best friends that gays ever had, but they don't advocate killing gays - I believe that stoning to death is the Sharia treatment for homosexuals. How's that for "diversity" in the House of Islam!

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 12:31pm):

"at least you'll have ACTUALLY SEEN what the hell you're making a ruckus about now, thanks to the BH.

Nice job, BH. Once more, I commend you."

any half wit who wanted to see the cartoon could have taken 5 seconds to search it on google. the BH shoved it down its readers throats

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 12:35pm):

"Muslims and Arabs in this country have seen a huge increase in the number of motivated physical attacks"

Any beheadings? Any people murdered by bomb? Any kidnappings?

Anyone mudered like Van Gogh was killed?

Stack 'em all up against the number of verified "honor killings" of Muslim women by their families.

Where's the real "ill feeling" problem? Calling somebody a fag or pushing a stone wall over onto them - quick, which is worse.

Adam Sitte (February 15, 2006 @ 12:45pm):

"I'm also tickled by the defense of the riots in that they "only" led to the death of 12 or 13 people. A million acts of blasphemy are not worth a SINGLE death"

that is misquoted and missed the point. protestors have been killed by law enforcement, rioters arent killing people left and right. its a matter of this issue being poorly framed on top of everything else. and of course these cartoons didnt warrant any death. the greater point is that there is a justification in being upset and a legitimacy in expressing this

Adam Sitte (February 15, 2006 @ 1:19pm):

"Comparing the printing of this cartoon to "putting on the hood" shows the complete lack of perspective by individuals who can't see any issue outside of a "victim" framework. Was the BH printing the cartoons to advocate their message? If not, it's hard to argue they are promoting cultural hatred."

the badger herald already printed a redrawing of the cartoon. the reprint was not necessary. whether intentional or not, they are in some sense 'putting on the hood,' even if just to say, 'hey, wearing this hood is an example of freedom of expression.' and that shows a lack of sensitivity and a failure to recognize how offensive the cartoon actually is. i would expect a newspaper to have standards, and i would expect the public to hold their newspaper to such standards.

imagine an article about a hate crime with the 'N' word printed in the header bold and in double sized font. maybe i am being naiive in thinking that proudly displaying symbols of intolerance serves as nothing but a mechanism in which to divide us.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 1:37pm):

It is very good for a student newspaper to print the actual news. Someone there is learning something.

Good, bad or Ugly, these cartoons are now news. Anyone who can deny that is a fool. The people who read the "free press" should be able to see what it is everyone in the muslim community is up in arms about.

Not showing these cartoons is blatant self-censorship by any individual media outlet and I think that is fine. It is supposed to be a "free" press right? The freedom to print or not print whatever they feel is fit is a cornerstone of our Free society in the West.

But the fact that a vast majority of media outlets have blacked out these images from the American people borders on collusion.

Bravo to the Badger Harold for its cajones. The US press could learn a lesson or two from the students. I had almost lost hope.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 1:46pm):

While the notion that these cartoons are analogous in context to racist language or depiction (e.g., using the "N" word, a cartoon depicting Coretta Scott King as "Topsy," etc.)is interesting and suggestive, it is hard from compelling. Look at the cartoons. Other than the notion that there is a prohibition on images of the muslim prophet, they are distinctly bland on the spectrum of political commentary. There are numerous examples of Jesus depicted in equally or worse lights (try images googling "Republican Jesus" or "sex jesus"). The substance of the cartoons is sophomoric at best.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 1:47pm):

Someone said above, "Freedom of speech is only important if you're going to offend someone. If you're not going to offend someone, you don't need freedom of speech."

Nobody needs to defend non-offensive speech. Those are not the people who get attacked, burned, mugged, killed (whatever it takes) to silence them from the majority mobs or even minority goons.

Offensive speech is what was specifically protected by the Bill of Rights when our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.

But then again the First Amendment is eroding like the Second, Fourth and Fifth have before it.

"When they came for me there was nobody left to stand up for MY rights..."

Uncle Jimbo (February 15, 2006 @ 1:50pm):

Bravo for execrcising your rights. They atrophy just like muscles if not used. And a right you can't exercise, is no longer a right.

Cordially,

Uncle J

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 2:03pm):

The western world is not unfairly picking on muslims. On any given day, you can turn on the TV and hear the word "nigger" "fag" "fundie christian" "greedy Jew" or any other offenisve words. The difference is the African, Christian, and Jewish communities peacefully and respectfully condemn the language. We all know that the use of those words is wrong. And any time we hear someone say "that dumb nigger" we consider that person a fool. But the muslim world has not reached that level of maturity. The muslim world calls for the murder of any westerner whenever something slightly offends them. To the muslims on this campus that were offended, get over it. How can you be angry at someone offending your religion, yet you say nothing about the hundreds of murders that muslims commit. Shiites and Sunnis kill each other because of their different interpretations of the same religion. Your religion is a religion of violence and murder. You can't say that the killers are "a small minority." How many times can you call a murder "an isolated incident." You should turn to your muslim "brothers" and say "this individual has insulted us. Let us respectully ask for an apology, and open a dialogue between our cultures." But instead you turn a blind eye to the inherent violent nature of your religion and your culture. You are the problem. And it is up to you to be the solution.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 2:03pm):

I think that people have and should be able to be intolerant of others, this being said it doesn't mean going out and killin people or really hurting them, but they don't have to agree with them at all or even see their side of the story. The Muslims are very hypocritical, they hate the "west" yet come here and are taught by the same people that they hate only to go back and use it against the "west" at times.
If they are so offended by the picture with the bomb on "Mohammad"s head then maybe they shoudl think about not killing in the "name of allah". Or maybe they should not be killing people in their lands and abducting them because they arent muslim. Evey muslim preaches that that Koran is a peaceful document that doesn't say anythig about hating or anger, yet all these muslims go ahead and kill in "the name of the koran". Personally I think it is crap, and that no one should be responsible to apologize for this.
Once again it is only a problem for the muslims when the "west: turns things around and starts using the ways that they (muslims) have been doing forever, degrading jews, christians, infeidels, etc. Its time that they learn that we do not have to acoomodate them and make them feel that they are better.

katie rash (February 15, 2006 @ 2:10pm):

Hypocritical, offensive and stupid are the best ways to describe the article concerning controversial muslim cartoons you printed. I understand the high regard in which your organization holds free speech but how can you ostricize the cartoon itself while still printing it in your paper. Is it bacause you want to give the readers what they want? No. If this were the case, you could have tastefully provided the student population with an internet link to the cartoons instead of printing them yourselves. This way, who ever wished to view them would be able to. Was it beacuse you wanted to gain noteriety as an edgy, risky paper? Was it because you were pissed off about the Illini scouping the story? Yes. It is hard to deny the fact that by prinitng a story like this you inentionally provoked debate and elevated the controversy at hand, using our campus as an unwilling arena. There is no need to reporduce an action of free speech just beacuse you believe in the principle. If a story broke out about offensive pornagraphic pictures being circulated around campus would you print those? But isn't that free speech? You're walking on thin ice as a liberal college news paper and the printing that cartoon was the wheight that made you fall through. The only thing you have left to do now is drown.

Ahmed Ayad (February 15, 2006 @ 2:53pm):

If the publishing of the cartoon with their editorial yesterday or their stubborn refusal to hear the call for decency and dialogue from the Muslim Students and prefering to live in their fictitous role of the knights of freedom have not shown the level of childishness and immaturity that the Herald editors posses, I believe their publishing of the letters with the "sic attack" is enough to give a glimpse of their mentality and show who they really are; a bunch of kids in a wild frat house with a 13 year old mentality and foolishness. Their approach brings to my mind the image of a couple of 13 year olds standing across the street with their tongues out shouting "Nyah Nyah boo boo" teasing a couple of other kids!

It is an unfortunate fact that they sit on the editorial board of one of the campus papers, but what are you gonna do. Life is sometimes irrational like that.

It was said that the worst of persons is one who doesn't know and doesn't know that he doesn't know. It was also said such person is only worthy of avoidance. I believe it would be a good idea for the Muslim Student population to avoid the Herald's editors from now on altogether and speak instead directly to the student body. The best vindication for someone attacked by such persons is the knowledge that they will remain the way they are, not knowing of their pathetic condition.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 3:38pm):

If you want to further express your free rights; why don't you post a demeaning cartoon of Martin Luther King? I, being a minority, would love to read your reasoning behind not posting a picture like that, or of another historical figure....let's say...Abraham Lincoln? Are you up to the challenge, and if you are not, why then, would you choose to post these cartoons over others?
-UW Student

Adam Sitte (February 15, 2006 @ 3:55pm):

"There are numerous examples of Jesus depicted in equally or worse lights (try images googling "Republican Jesus" or "sex jesus"). The substance of the cartoons is sophomoric at best."

and both muslims and christians should be offended by those cartoons. there is a serious lack of understanding here, in my opinion, of what the Prophets mean to muslims. that being said, i understand not everyone has the same respect for them. nevertheless, to picture a prophet as a sex symbol or with a bomb strapped to their head is far from sophomoric.

you bring up a good point though. i could google these pictures if i wanted to(but rather wouldnt) see them. the badger herald really has no business printing them.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 4:01pm):

I will stop hating muslims when they stop deserving it.

Mick Novack (February 15, 2006 @ 4:07pm):

Freedom of speach is our right, It may upset the muslims thats just to bad, other religions and ehtnic groups have gone thru the same thing thru out history, dont ever give up rights given to you fight for them,dont apologize to any one nothing was done wrong

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 4:13pm):

No Muslim brother cared to explain this to me. Is it that noone has time or is it that noone can refute the above?

http://www.universalunity.net/quran4/002.qmt.html

002.190
Waqatiloo fee sabeeli Allahi allatheena yuqatiloonakum wala taAAtadoo inna Allaha la yuhibbu almuAAtadeena
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

002.191
Waoqtuloohum haythu thaqiftumoohum waakhrijoohum min haythu akhrajookum waalfitnatu ashaddu mina alqatli wala tuqatiloohum AAinda almasjidi alharami hatta yuqatilookum feehi fa-in qatalookum faoqtuloohum kathalika jazao alkafireena
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

And for those with enough time to waste, a very biased account goes below that explains the above Yusuf Ali translation.
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/toc.html

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 4:49pm):

If super-dooper Allah doesn't care for the cartoons, HE (IT?) is welcome to smite us all. In fact, if any GOD is upset with anything or anybody ... by all means, smite us all. Or maybe, just maybe, Allah or any other God as we mere miscreant humans know Him (IT?), just doesn't give a bloody rats ass. There is no greater God than Popeye!

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 4:52pm):

"If you want to further express your free rights; why don't you post a demeaning cartoon of Martin Luther King?"

While they are certainly not in the same class as MLK, it's interesting to note that there have been PLENY of racist cartoons demeaning blacks in the last few years. Of course they've mostly been republicans so I suppose that doesn't count.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 5:55pm):

Once and for all stop calling it "The Muslim World." I go to Church every sunday and if someone called Pat Robertson part of my "Christian World" I would pray for their forgiveness. There are pyschos in every single walk of life no matter what race religion or creed. So please just stop talking about the Muslim world as if they all sit around thinking of ways to kill Americans.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 6:02pm):

The great irony in all of this, of course, is that Islam is practically the same religion as Islam, unfortunately there are just a whole lot more Jerry Farwell's over there ready to attack. If the far right had their way there would be a bloody riot everytime someone offended jesus. Both sides are dead dead wrong. They are both insisting on forcing their religion on everyone else. And if you don't agree with that I'll have Pat Robertson send you a tornado.

Abe Sorock (February 15, 2006 @ 6:10pm):

I think what a lot of people either fail to realize or choose to ignore is that the Muslims on the UW campus have nothing to do with what's going on in Europe right now. So when people say blanket statements about Muslims and Islam, you're insulting people who aren't anything like the stereotypes that you're fed by the media. Obviously violence in all forms should be condemned, whether perpetrated by a Muslim or by anyone else. However, you can condemn the act without condemning the entire religion, which is a distinction a lot of my colleagues aren't making. When you denounce "violence," you're on target. When you denounce "Muslims," you're talking about real people who live and work around you, and would never even consider reacting to this foolishness with violence. I don't know if a little consideration is too much to ask for, but I'll ask for it anyway.


"So what if the cartoons are slanderous to Muslims. Just look at all the slanderous crap that Muslims have leveled at Jews, Hindus and Christians. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Kapeesh?"

It's kind of a downer to me that there's someone (anonymous, of course) out there who really does believe that two wrongs make a right. Just like the Jews, Hindus and Christians shouldn't have been slandered then, Muslims shouldn't be slandered now. Can anyone "be the bigger man" here? Or is it going to be ignorance and hate, with "they did it first" as a defense?

"Nice job with the 'sic' attack."

Good point. That seems to me like an editorial attempt to discredit a minority voice. I don't think anyone would have considered the Badger Herald negligent if they had neglected to interrupt that statement with a "[sic]" every other word.

"I will stop hating muslims when they stop deserving it."

For shame.

"End the hatred."

Amen.

Bryan Tyrpin (February 15, 2006 @ 6:25pm):

The Badger Herald's insistence on upholding the right of freedom of speech is admirable, but inappropriate in this circumstance. Yes, freedom of speech is sacred and truly important, but when a newspaper such as the Herald uses it to display an image that has caused so much anger and sadness then it can only be described as insensitive. The Danish newspaper that initially printed this cartoon certainly had the right to print it, but they also had to be prepared to deal with the consequences. I certainly don't condone the violence that has erupted in the Middle East because of this cartoon, but right or wrong, that was the consequence to the printed image. As a result, the Danish newspaper should have stood by their call for freedom of speech, but also should have apologized for any ill-will they may have caused. Most importantly, other European newspapers should not have re-printed the images out of respect for those who had lost their lives in the midst of the violent reaction to the cartoon.

The Badger Herald mentioned the incident of a KKK parade held in Skokie, Illinois a few years ago. The KKK and neo-Nazi groups certainly have a right to hold parades and express their opinions, just as any other people have a right to express their opposition to such groups. But if the KKK were to have a parade in the same neighborhood every day for a week, they would only be instigating the opposition and inciting an increasingly angry and potentially violent response. They would have the right to continuously parade, but that doesn't make them right and it certainly doesn't win them support.

By continuously printing the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, these newspapers are only instigating the opposition which has already proven to be violent and deadly. These newspapers have the right to do so, but that doesn't make it wise or appropriate.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 7:13pm):

To the guy who posted the translation from the Koran: Don't point out those passages to us. Point them out to the millions of hate mongering muslims around the world.

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 7:27pm):

" to picture a prophet as a sex symbol "

That is SOOOO wrong, of course in the USA it would be jail time for any 50+ year old "prophet" who had sex with a nine year old girl. Maybe that's the trade-off for not killing people who insult prophets?

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 7:38pm):

"To the guy who posted the translation from the Koran: Don't point out those passages to us. Point them out to the millions of hate mongering muslims around the world."

You're a perfect example of SOME muslims not being the only ones to propogate hate

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 7:41pm):

"By continuously printing the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, these newspapers are only instigating the opposition which has already proven to be violent and deadly."

So it's best to submit to the bullies? Did appeasement work out well for everyone when Neville Chamberlain returned from talks with the German Fuhrer and Chancellor bringing
"Peace for Our Time" in 1938?

I guess the lesson here is to riot and burn and bomb and murder if anyone prints something that you don't like. SUBMIT OR DIE!

It so different from the old "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me" that Mom taught me. For Islam it's "sticks and stones WILL break YOUR bones if you use words that hurt me".

A POX ON ALL WHO EXCUSE VIOLENCE TO SILENCE FREE SPEACH!

Ozge Sevindik (February 15, 2006 @ 8:57pm):

Let's please don't copy and paste things taken out of context. If you want a to read about the historical background of the verse and see what comes before and after this, I suggest you look here:
http://tinyurl.com/b4568
Yeah for "FREE SPEACH!"

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 9:22pm):

If anyone thinks that there aren't people making fun of Abraham Lincoln or Jesus or gays or minorities obviously doesn't watch Comedy Central.

How many people does it take to silence free speach? How many buildings do I have to burn to get my way? Hm, I don't like the image of the Trix Bunny. So how many people do I need to get together to riot in order to ban that rabbit?

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 9:54pm):

We should meat them in pieces. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 9:58pm):

from http://tinyurl.com/b4568

"Recently Serbian Christians used them against Bosnian Muslims."

Fat lot of good it did the USA to bomb the Serbian Christians to protect the Muslims. Ungrateful SOBs.

Yeah for Vlad the Impaler

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 10:08pm):

OTOH, other web sites may portray a less peaceful Islam.

***

A Hamas Web site recently published the videotape wills of two suicide bombers, with two main messages: One is directed to the Jews whose blood Hamas pledges to drink until they flee from the land of the Muslims, and the other is devoted to a mother who helps her son plan a suicide attack

"We will not leave you alone until we quench ourselves with your blood and we will quench the thirst of our children with your blood. We will not rest until you leave the lands of the Muslims."

Rajab, the second terrorist, says: "By the life of Allah, we will destroy you. We will blow you up. We will take our revenge on you. We will purify our land of you, pigs, who have defiled our land. By the life of Allah, we will take our vengeance. We are carrying out this operation as harsh revenge against the sons of monkeys and pigs."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/682921.html

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 10:17pm):

Columnist says we'd all be a lot happier if we came to grips with the fact that the Internet will, one day, offend us all.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/internet/0,70209-0.html

Anonymous (February 15, 2006 @ 11:15pm):

"Fat lot of good it did the USA to bomb the Serbian Christians to protect the Muslims. Ungrateful SOBs. "

Yeah, because there's world Islam conferences where Serbian, Iraqi, and American muslims all sit around sipping tea and plotting the death if infidels... not.

scott mehring (February 16, 2006 @ 12:17am):

http://scottmehring.blogspot.com/2006/02/chancellor-wiley-way-off-mark.html

Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 12:25am):

No plotting required - just submission to the will of allah.

Killing those who mock Muhammed - it's not just a good idea, it's the law! Sharia Law, that is.

Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 2:01am):

Stop the hate and generalizations. So many of you people make me sick. Please just find it in your hearts to read more and educate yourselves on the issues. Read the Quran, Bible, and other texts before you attack them. Study the lives of men who are so greatly admired to this day before you offend them. Do what is right, not what is easy. Examples of present day Muslims in various countries will not always give you an exact picture of Islam. Examples of the men in the Catholic Church will not always give you a correct depiction of Christianity.
Please, choose your words wisely as many of you have clearly offended various minorities on this page.

Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 2:04am):

BH, I do not commend you. You have only printed these cartoons to create controversy and attention, not to further free speech. I am really disappointed. You have offended many people; it would be appropriate to apologize to them. Stand up for your actions.

Ozge Sevindik (February 16, 2006 @ 2:29am):

I have read every comment made on this board, and the other boards this discussion have been going on.
I find it fascinating that the hateful comments are not coming from the Muslims many of you claim as "pains in the butt, uncivilized savages" and many other names I don't care to repeat. Take a look around these boards and see who it is that tries to use the mask of Anonymous to unleash their hatred.
There are hundreds of Muslims on this campus, and do you see any of us burning down state street or whatever it is you assume Muslims do. I live with a Buddhist and an Atheist. Everyday I attend class with my classmates who are not Muslim. Submit or Die? Do you see me or any other Muslim on this campus killing anyone? No. What are we doing? We are writing letters, columns, calling people, and we organized a forum for Tuesday for people to attend and discuss this issue. Not bad for a bunch of SAVAGES huh?

"Now excuse me I have some Korans to flush....
Oohh did I just insult some Muslims, so what are you going to do now forget about it or come burn my house down and again SHOW YOUR TRUE COLORS...."
No, I am not coming to burn down your house. Or stick a knife in your ribs, as someone else suggested. But I sincerely hope people who are reading this with an ounce of intellect in them will see who's showing their true colors.
P.S. Yes, this is my real name and yes, I am on facebook.

Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 9:22am):

What was great about the cartoons is the resultant outcry and violence from the Islamo-fascist communities. It highlights the threat these people have become. Real, dangerous and very wacky. What the left hates, as highlighted by the postings of non-muslims who complaing the BH should not have published a cartoon, is the fact that the resultant fervor supports the position taken by Bush, Blair, Bersculoni(sp),etc in Iraq.

Not only did Sadam violate the terms of surrender but he had the desire and the means to hand over weapons to nut jobs who burn down emabassies and western restaurants over cartoons. As an example Polio cases are building in African states run by Muslim leaders because Wahabi Imams have told their people that the vaccine is intended to destroy the fertility of the Islamic people. How do you fight that kind of evil stupidity? How do you surrender to it?

Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 9:43am):

Kinda makes you wonder if Milosevic was right all along doesn't it???

Anonymous (February 16, 2006 @ 1:32pm):

Ozge Sevindik:
A response to your queries. I am the "mad man" who quoted out of context from the Quran. The issue, often confused in this ill-read American and European world, is not about Islam, but about Islamism - the political side of Islam.

To this day, Islam has been exploited (better to use the word "prostituted") by political masters the world over (right from West Asia (not the Middle East) to Brunei to Chechenya) for whatever they seem to need as instant gratification. And to this day, the Imams and the mullahs are seen not only as the well-learned in the Islamic community, but also as sources of advise and guidance in cases of doubt and multiple solutions. So as much as the mullahs manipulate the Quran and use the Suras out of context, there will be as much violence in the Islamic world.

I hope that you know that there are at least (to my knowledge) 10 different sects of Islam (Shia, Sunni, Ahl-e-Hadith, Ismaili, Ahmedi, Qadiani, Wahhabi, Barelvi, Deobandi to name a few) each of which believes that they are the ONE and the ONLY way to salvation and the other so-called sects are nothing but apostates. This Islamism, the political manipulation of the Holy Quran and the Hadiths, to suit each and every power-wannabe's needs and demands make the normal outlook of Islam violent. And that is why, you see zero violence in Madison but infinite violence in West Asia.

And the day every Joe American learns of this fact, you will have respect for your fellow Muslim brothers who are peaceful and spite for those intolerant spite-mongering Imams like Abu Hamza who deserve nothing but 72 houris in Jannat (I think Jahannum is better suited for such morons).

Peace be upon you. Salaam-aleikum.

Anonymous (February 17, 2006 @ 9:58am):

The violent protests to the cartoons are completely over the top and indefensible.

I have lived in 3 different muslim countries and the prime time for demonstrations and/or violence is after Friday prayer. The masses are often incited to riot and/or demonstrate and I think this says something about the leaders of Islam, if not the religion.

Robert Hall (February 18, 2006 @ 7:35pm):

The Muslim Students Association is right to protest the Badger Herald's publication of a cartoon of Muhammad. They should protest almost as loudly as they protested the murder of 3,000 innocent people by Muslims on 9/11. They should be almost as outraged as they were by the murder of Daniel Pearl by Muslims. They should be nearly as angry as they are when Muslim suicide bombers murder Jewish children. They should be demanding the ouster of the Herald editor almost as loudly as they demanded that Muslim terrorists release Jill Carroll. And, they should be nearly as upset as they are by cartoons in the Muslim press showing Jews drinking the blood of Muslim babies. Perhaps they should riot like Christians did when the National Endowment for the Arts used tax dollars to support "Piss Christ," depicting a crucifix submerged in urine.

Acts of murder and terrorism degrade Islam far more than any cartoon, and Muslim silence convinces non-Muslims that most Muslims condone the slaughter of innocents. There's a nasty joke going around that a moderate Muslim is one who's out of ammunition. When Muslims display more outrage over cartoons than over murder, they give such slander of Islam credence.

--Robert A. Hall

Anonymous (February 19, 2006 @ 2:58pm):

It is really disapointing how the Badger Herald displayed their ignorant while trying to promote institutional racism in their editorial. Their is a big difference and responsibility when it comes to free speech; freedom of expression does not mean freedom of insult, defamation and slander. The attacks on our Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is just one of the symptoms thats breeding in the west (social cancer-islamophobia). These attacks may actually signify that Islam and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) have great appeal to the thousands who embrace Islam by choice every year. As such, all such attempts to defame Islam with the help of UW funds, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) or the Qur'an are intended to "extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but rest assured that Allah will complete the shining of His light even though rejecters of faith may hate it." (As-Saff 61: 9)

It's fair to say that some members of the Danish parliament objected to this abuse of freedom of expression, but it is unfortunate, however, to notice the silence and double standards of the Chancellor and his administration in handling this matter which I and others will interpret as tacit or silent approval of such indecency. The least that the Chancellor should have done was:
1. should have at least condemned and disapproved this aberration.

2. at least should have spoken openly against this abuse to the badger herald and make them accountable for their actions

Also, from a religious and especially Islamic perspective freedom of expression is bound by sensible rules of morality including mutual respect of others without necessarily accepting their beliefs and avoidance of indecency that destroys the moral and social fabric of society.

For a true Muslim the love of God and His messenger is more so than their love of themselves. "The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves..." (Al-Ahzab 33: 6)

As such, Muslims may be more tolerant to a personal insult than an insult directed at his most beloved Prophets.

In addition, for the Muslim Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is not nearly a Prophet but a complete role modal in all phases and aspects of life. An observant Muslim remembers the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) throughout daily life and follows his example in prayer, work, and social involvement and above all, moral quality. Therefore, a slander against Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is a slander not only on a revered historical personality; it is an assault on the Muslim daily life and practice. There is hardly any other faith community that feels affinity more than practicing Muslims do.

Anonymous (February 21, 2006 @ 6:02am):

This "Jesse Zarley" is a moron. Not only does he not understand what "racism" is, despite it's rather obvious meaning. It's degrading and discriminating against another RACE. Are Islamic savages another race? Is publishing a cartoon of the child-rapist Mohammed degrading another race? Don't think so, but I don't know what the world view of this "Jesse Zarley" is.

The 100,000 estimate was bogus, and this person probably knows it. Yet he continues to espouse it, because of his fierce hatred of America and Americans. It is probably something like 25,000, many of whom have been killed by the Islamist terrorists whom this person would call "freedom fighters". But when his Muslims friends kill, it is also the fault of the United States. Never hold the fascist cult of Islam responsible for its actions. The Bible says, you know them by their fruits. And what are the fruits of Islam? Murders, beheadings, opression of women, (gang) rape, terrorism, anti-Semitism.

The moronic "Jesse Zarley" hasn't embarrassed himself quite enough, he continues to rant about the United States not having recognized the election of terrorists in Palestine, so-called. Yet the United States is under no obligation to co-operate with a government that wants to destroy another state, and willfully kills innocent civilians of that state. Funny that this hypocrite "Jesse Zarley" does rant about the collateral damage in Iraq (we did not kill these people on purpose), but that we don't hear him about the willful slaughter of innocent Israeli civilians.

He says that this expression does not contribute anything to the marketplace of ideas. Well, I think your letter does not contribute anything, except ignorance. But his letter is worth a good laugh, I can wonder how someone can be as stupid as "Jesse Zarley" is.

I have zero respect for traitors to Western values like this person. I will treat them with the contempt they deserve, for they have forfeited every right to be treated with respect when they sided with the barbarian Muslims.

From The Hague, Netherlands.

Anonymous (April 18, 2006 @ 6:36pm):

"The Bible says, you know them by their fruits. And what are the fruits of Islam? Murders, beheadings, opression of women, (gang) rape, terrorism, anti-Semitism."

what are you talking about, a. understand that the quran explicity speaks out in favor of honoring jews and christians. b. 2 of the crimes you listed are hudud crimes and one a qisas, c. oppression of women was what islam fixed.

Anonymous (April 18, 2006 @ 6:39pm):

"The Muslim Students Association is right to protest the Badger Herald's publication of a cartoon of Muhammad. They should protest almost as loudly as they protested the murder of 3,000 innocent people by Muslims on 9/11."

where were you during 9/11? open your eyes and maybe you would have realized that muslims DID speak out, quite openly against these acts.

Place a shout-out!
Top Classified Ads (view all)

Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!

DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!

Place a classified ad

Advertising